George Baker's Photography's Expanded Field is in essence the after effects of photography on the art world. There were many things that led to the invention and expansion of photography, and photography was also a key factor to the invention and expansion of other media. Baker argues that photography was not deconstructed to form film, but was expanded, meaning both media can exist together. However, with the new expansion, photography is no longer simply a snapshot of reality, an index to the tangible, it is turned into a still frame of a larger story, a moving story otherwise known as a film. Film, on the other hand, cannot exist without a reference to photography because each frame can be stilled to become a picture, or a representation of a tiny portion of a whole. Therefore, both photography and film coexist and exhibit components of each other. Photography can be talked about in film terminology, or solely photographic terminology, or both. "What would it mean to invert this exclusion, to locate a project not as the photographic suspension between the not-narrative and the not-stasis, but as some new combination of both terms, involving both narrative and stasis at the same time?" All this talk of expansion led to the thought of photography expanding to more than one field. Photography has potential to be the basis of more than one form of modern art besides cinema, just like sculpture was the founder of much of art.
i really liked how Baker talked about photography no longer being an isolated middle man between media, but a part of the whole experience of art. "Photography is no longer the priveleged middle term between two things that it isn't. Photography is rather only one term in the periphery of a field in which there are other, differently structured possibilities."
Monday, March 31, 2008
Photography's Expanded Field
I really struggled comprehending the diction and terms in this article which detracted from my understanding of the overall message. From what I understood Barker is explaining the postmodernist movement in photography. The defining characteristic of photographs during this movement is that they are part of a longer or larger story or scene. Photographs represent a single still in a story that let the viewer construct a narrative.
I thought it was interesting that Barker describes this as a characteristic of postmodernism because this did not feel like a new observation. Many of the photographs we have looked at in class seem to be just a fraction of a story. For example, Cindy Sherman's photographs where she purposely positions herself to look as though she is in a movie. She even titles her photographs film stills. Also, I felt that straight and documentary photography was, in a way, attempting to create a narrative of rural American life. The photographs taken by Lange and Evans seem to tell stories about the lives of the people they are photographing. Especially Evan's pictures of the tenant farmers families.
Postmodernism might have been the emergence of photographers taking pictures with the intent of trying to allude to a longer story, but I feel like all along photographers have been telling stories with their pictures. Therefore I felt confused by Barker's message for two reasons: first because his writing was unclear to an inexperienced photographer and second because I disagree with his argument.
George Baker
This piece reminds me of the first Jeff Wall piece we read because I could hardly understand it at all. I'm going to take the phrase "photography between narrative and stasis" and describe what I think it means. It is described in the essay as "...photographic language between the movements of narrative and the stoppage of stasis..." and this might become the structuring condition for modernist photography.
To me, all photographs have a narrative and a stasis because they are snap shot with a story. One cannot look at a photograph without feeling something or making up a story behind it, if there isn't one already (in a caption, for example). Perhaps it is because film is such a big part of our lives now, photographs are becoming one of many shots in a moving picture. When we look at a photo we wonder what came before and what will come after. This idea reminds me of the picture we saw of the couple on the bed and the caption read something about "this is a time I know she loved me." When we see that, we wonder what their relationship was like, if they are still together now, even if they weren't even a real couple. At the same time, this photograph is one small moment, and it will always be frozen--therefore it is static and unmoving, forever.
So the fact that Baker is saying modernist photographs will have this title is a bit confusing to me because it seems that most, if not all, photographs have this mantra behind them. The only ones that might not are the strange conceptual photographs which invoke little to no emotion, in my opinion. Even they, though, have some sort of narrative which are probably more important than the actual photograph. The picture of the photographer getting shot by his friend is a good example of this. It obviously has a statis because the bullet or the "shot" of the gun gets captured on film, but the narrative behind it stays with the person as well.
To me, all photographs have a narrative and a stasis because they are snap shot with a story. One cannot look at a photograph without feeling something or making up a story behind it, if there isn't one already (in a caption, for example). Perhaps it is because film is such a big part of our lives now, photographs are becoming one of many shots in a moving picture. When we look at a photo we wonder what came before and what will come after. This idea reminds me of the picture we saw of the couple on the bed and the caption read something about "this is a time I know she loved me." When we see that, we wonder what their relationship was like, if they are still together now, even if they weren't even a real couple. At the same time, this photograph is one small moment, and it will always be frozen--therefore it is static and unmoving, forever.
So the fact that Baker is saying modernist photographs will have this title is a bit confusing to me because it seems that most, if not all, photographs have this mantra behind them. The only ones that might not are the strange conceptual photographs which invoke little to no emotion, in my opinion. Even they, though, have some sort of narrative which are probably more important than the actual photograph. The picture of the photographer getting shot by his friend is a good example of this. It obviously has a statis because the bullet or the "shot" of the gun gets captured on film, but the narrative behind it stays with the person as well.
Barker's Photography's Expanded Field
As almost everyone who had posted on the blog expressed, Barker’s essay was quite a challenging read. To me, the central message conveyed by Barker was that, in postmodern era, photography has extended beyond merely depicting a scene or constructing a narrative, has also expanded spatially to challenge traditional notions of photographs as pure representations of reality. In this expanded field, photographs such as those by Cindy Sherman neither depict an unaltered scene nor construct a real narrative. Barker describes this postmodern condition of the photograph as a state between “narrativity and stasis.” In this condition, a series of documentary portraits is both a chronological narration of the subject and also static representations of the subject at different points in time. However, I fail to see how these characteristics exactly make a photograph postmodern as all photographs are able to invite the viewer into constructing his own narrative and also are static representations of a subject or event. Throughout his essay, Barker also seems to dispel the notion that the photographic medium has been “decentered” (219) by breaking with the traditional representative notion of photography. In its new form, photographs such as those by Orozco and or Sherman occupy a space that is beyond mere representational reality. It is through their incorporation of elements that are both simultaneously real -the reflections in “Extension of a Reflection,” the stone in “Yielding Stone,” and Cindy Sherman as the actress- as well as constructed -the objects in the reflections in “Extension of a Reflection,” the narrative or the stone rolling over the vent covering in “Yielding Stone,” and the many personas invented by Cindy Sherman- that photography is not merely decentered from its representative form, but expanded to construct its cinematic narrative. Barker also seems to possess an optimistic attitude regarding this expansion of the role of photography in contemporary art. To him, these new methods freed the photography from its mere documentary role and provided new ways through which the photograph can interact with its viewers.
Photography’s Expanded Field
There was much information offered in this essay on contemporary photography, yet the information was not easy to interpret. George Barker makes the vivid point that contemporary photography and art of today always seem to “focus on an object in crisis, or in severe transformation.” This idea goes along with the conceptual topic of postmodernism and how photography was changing during this time and continues to change today. I find the exact definition of postmodernism hard to comprehend because there are many elements that make it complete. The basic meaning I receive from postmodernism is that the focus and purpose of a photograph is continually being altered as time goes on, and postmodernism is a common stage for photography. Barker claims that traces of traditional photography are no longer apparent as evidence of it once being a popular artistic practice.
Barker brings up an interesting and very important topic concerning photography in which he argues that if the exact object and purpose of photography today is getting blurred, it is our job to discover what this field of photography means in order to understand why it is important today. Why do we care about photography at all? This topic is again jumping back to earlier discussions that we have semi-covered in class but didn’t necessarily resolve. These topics covered and related to the meaning of photography and basic but often boring questions of why it is important and subjects similar to this. Overall, I think Barker has a very interesting perspective and take on contemporary photography. At certain moments in the text although, the tone of the essay seems a little angry about the fact that photography has come to this point and has succumbed to this stage in art. This was a difficult essay to get through and I made my best attempt to understand Barker’s message.
Photography's Expanded Field
I would have to agree with my classmates that George Baker’s Photography’s Expanded Field was and extremely challenging piece to read. I find art historical writing to be the most difficult type of discourse to comprehend; it uses extremely sophisticated diction and requires a prior familiarity of the topics discussed. I felt that each time I was starting to understand an argument the author was making, the rest of the paragraph would drift off into the land of fancy art words and I would lose track of the point of the passage. I was constantly finishing a paragraph and then asking myself, “What did I just read?” I did not understand all the points the author presented, but I think that after several re-readings, I have caught on to the overall point. I found the main message of the paper to be that photography has not come to end! Baker seems to be addressing some art critics’ claim that photography has been replaced by newer, more complex mediums. He says, “Critical consensus would have it that the problem today is not that just about anything image-based can now be considered photographic, but rather that photography itself has been…outmoded technologically and displaced aesthetically” (203). Baker pleads that although modern photography produces works of art that look very different than the early photographs, “something like a photographic effect still remains—survives, perhaps, in a new, altered form” (204). Even though Rineke Dijkstra puts video camera recordings of her subjects next to their portraits and Sam Taylor-Wood supplements his photographs with audio soundtracks, the medium is still photography. He asks his audience, and the art world in general, to accept this “expanded field of operation” of new photography (205). Baker argues that the expanded field of operation in photography has followed a general trend to put images in motion, to make them less static and more narrative. He says, “The world of contemporary art seems to have moved on, quite literally, to a turn that we would now have to call cinematic rather than photographic” (203). Photographers like Philip-Lorca diCorcia and Cindy Sherman create photos that resemble film stills. Baker makes an argument similar to Walter Benjamin when he says that cinematic photography has called for the “expansion of its terms into a more fully cultural arena” (213). Walter Benjamin proposes in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction that films are a powerful way to mobilize the masses. Likewise, Baker is optimistic that cinematic photographs will travel to the public and effect popular culture. Contemporary, modernist, and post-modernist "cinematic photography" moved so far away from original photography that people began to question whether it should even be considered the same medium. But George Baker makes the argument that recognizing the new photography as photography is possible, and will be beneficial to the world, if one is flexible enough to accept the “expanded field.”
Sunday, March 30, 2008
“Photography’s Expanded Field” - Lauren
I found George Baker’s “Photography’s Expanded Field” particularly difficult to read. There were many terms that he used that I was completely unfamiliar with, and he never explained them, which was rather frustrating. Plus, Baker’s two main terms, “narrative” and “stasis”, seemed to remain not only vague, but also completely undistinguishable from one another and their respective reversed opposites (“not-narrative” and “not-stasis”) by the end of the essay. It was almost as if Baker stepped further away from establishing these terms and explaining their relation to photography instead of developing these ideas through his essay.
What is “stasis” anyways? I understand the narrative aspect(s) of photography, not only in regards to the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words, but also like what Cindy Sherman does, where her images suggest a further story or film that the still is taken from. But I just do not understand what “stasis” refers to, or even a photographer whose work exemplifies this. Although, perhaps I just missed that in Baker’s essay because I was distracted by my own attempts to make what I could of his selected images and diagrams. What really threw me was Baker’s discussion of “Klein groups and semiotic squares” (128). As far as I understand, he was displaying the polar opposites of various ideas pertaining to photography and/or art. But that was as much as I got out of that.
This essay definitely required prior knowledge, the lack of which had severely detrimental effects on my understanding of Baker’s argument and ideas. I think his approach to explaining contemporary art would be quite interesting and applicable to our discussions had I been able to understand what he was actually talking about….
What is “stasis” anyways? I understand the narrative aspect(s) of photography, not only in regards to the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words, but also like what Cindy Sherman does, where her images suggest a further story or film that the still is taken from. But I just do not understand what “stasis” refers to, or even a photographer whose work exemplifies this. Although, perhaps I just missed that in Baker’s essay because I was distracted by my own attempts to make what I could of his selected images and diagrams. What really threw me was Baker’s discussion of “Klein groups and semiotic squares” (128). As far as I understand, he was displaying the polar opposites of various ideas pertaining to photography and/or art. But that was as much as I got out of that.
This essay definitely required prior knowledge, the lack of which had severely detrimental effects on my understanding of Baker’s argument and ideas. I think his approach to explaining contemporary art would be quite interesting and applicable to our discussions had I been able to understand what he was actually talking about….
Friday, March 28, 2008
"Photography's Expanded Field" - Sierra
George Baker’s “Photography’s Expanded Field” was a very difficult article to get through. He writes with such complex diction that I found myself having to read certain sections repeatedly. Even after rereading, I still do not feel that I completely understood the article. However, I do agree with Baker’s statement “the world of contemporary art seems rather to have moved on, quite literally, to a turn that we would now have to call cinematic rather than photographic” (203). Cinematic elements can be detected in many postmodern photographs. Cindy Sherman’s “Untitled Film Stills” series provides evidence to back up Baker’s statement. I believe that photographers began photographing from a cinematic point of view because a greater story can be told this way. This seems to be because the viewer associates the images with a film, and, in doing so, becomes aware of the idea that the image does not stand alone, but is surrounded by other elements that help portray its story. This allows the photographer to convey a stronger message through the image.
Baker also writes about the concept of mounting speakers near an image so the photo becomes “a picture where the condition of ‘talking’ has been taken as far as it can go” (217). I understand this might assist in conveying the photographer’s message and idea, but the idea of viewing a photograph while speakers are generating background noise is a bit odd. I feel that this would almost detract from the image because I find it easier to view images when it is quiet, for staring at a picture in complete silence stimulates more thought and is free from distractions. Overall, I felt this article was talking about many concepts that I could not fully understand.
Baker also writes about the concept of mounting speakers near an image so the photo becomes “a picture where the condition of ‘talking’ has been taken as far as it can go” (217). I understand this might assist in conveying the photographer’s message and idea, but the idea of viewing a photograph while speakers are generating background noise is a bit odd. I feel that this would almost detract from the image because I find it easier to view images when it is quiet, for staring at a picture in complete silence stimulates more thought and is free from distractions. Overall, I felt this article was talking about many concepts that I could not fully understand.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
"Photography's Expanded Field"
I found myself again and again having to reread sections throughout this piece. Maybe it was too long or that I was not interested, but I was simply not able to grasp what I was reading and so would like to instead talk about the photographs that accompany the writeup.
Jeff Wall's "The Storyteller" has a playful double meaning as it seems there is a story being told in a circle of people near the left side of the photograph. The picture itself is telling a story; the viewer can interpret it how they please but there is someone left out of the circle off on his own. There could be many stories behind this situation but the subtle location underneath an overpass on a hill draws the attention towards the story-telling aspect. The other similar photograph is located near the end of the reader entitled "In the News" showing the location of where a truck driver was killed. While the event is not shown, the location and result is, allowing the viewer to draw any conclusions they want to about what happened. The setting of the 'story' is again, under an overpass except there was a lot more going on in "In the News". It was a strong contrast to the nonchalant storytelling going on in Jeff Wall's photograph.
"Young Farmers" and "Streetworkers" are so similar that it is kind of creepy. The two sets of three men from different eras and demographics doing almost the exact same thing makes me wonder whether or not this was a staged similarity.
Photography from film seems quite interesting because the subjects aren't staging their appearance for a single moment in time, but rather for a longer time period. This makes the photographs taken from the film show true human expression and body language. Their 'being caught on tape' reveals an honest depiction of how they feel about a situation. It is also intriguing that all film is is photographs run one after another, begging the question, "What is film and what is film photography?" Where do you draw the line?
Finally, I liked "Extension of a Reflection" and "Yielding Stone" because they are photographs of the ground. Almost all photographs are of a subject at ground level or higher up, but the angle of these two pictures is straight down. I think the attention to detail in the composition is pretty great in each of these two works. Places we would not normally pay attention to or study in detail are depicted in interesting compositions. I really REALLY want to know what that ball like figure is in "Yielding Stone".
Jeff Wall's "The Storyteller" has a playful double meaning as it seems there is a story being told in a circle of people near the left side of the photograph. The picture itself is telling a story; the viewer can interpret it how they please but there is someone left out of the circle off on his own. There could be many stories behind this situation but the subtle location underneath an overpass on a hill draws the attention towards the story-telling aspect. The other similar photograph is located near the end of the reader entitled "In the News" showing the location of where a truck driver was killed. While the event is not shown, the location and result is, allowing the viewer to draw any conclusions they want to about what happened. The setting of the 'story' is again, under an overpass except there was a lot more going on in "In the News". It was a strong contrast to the nonchalant storytelling going on in Jeff Wall's photograph.
"Young Farmers" and "Streetworkers" are so similar that it is kind of creepy. The two sets of three men from different eras and demographics doing almost the exact same thing makes me wonder whether or not this was a staged similarity.
Photography from film seems quite interesting because the subjects aren't staging their appearance for a single moment in time, but rather for a longer time period. This makes the photographs taken from the film show true human expression and body language. Their 'being caught on tape' reveals an honest depiction of how they feel about a situation. It is also intriguing that all film is is photographs run one after another, begging the question, "What is film and what is film photography?" Where do you draw the line?
Finally, I liked "Extension of a Reflection" and "Yielding Stone" because they are photographs of the ground. Almost all photographs are of a subject at ground level or higher up, but the angle of these two pictures is straight down. I think the attention to detail in the composition is pretty great in each of these two works. Places we would not normally pay attention to or study in detail are depicted in interesting compositions. I really REALLY want to know what that ball like figure is in "Yielding Stone".
Monday, March 17, 2008
Louise Lawler
In Rosalind Krauss's essay "Louise Lawler: Souvenir Memories," the concept of spectacle is explored and related to concepts introduced in Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Whereas Benjamin hypothesized that photography and mechanical reproduction would revolutionize art by diminishing the cult-value, or the spectacle, of the work of art, Krauss proposes that "Benjamin could not know what it would be like for these effects to have become the totality of one's experience." In the contemporary period, painting is no longer strictly opaque, and photography is not strictly transparent, but because of the spectacle's permeation into everyday life, the roles have been reversed. Media images have become opaque because of commodification, and the proliferation of such media images has permeated all parts of life, leading to the construstion of the spectacle in life.
Louise Lawler's works are related to the concept of spectacle in the sense that they consciously capture the spectacle in life by forcing a specific point of view towards works of art in their natural surrounding. The photographs are of other works of art in galleries, but taken in such a way that the fixed point of view puts another layer between the observer and the spectacle of the original. Lawler recontextualizes images in terms of spectacle and commodity, similarly to how Sherrie Levine recontextualized images in terms of gender. The observer is forced to acknowledge that the work of art is "a function of public space" rather than just admiring it's aura. Once the commodification of the art has been realized, it can be seen more clearly how art interacts with society.
Louise Lawler's works are related to the concept of spectacle in the sense that they consciously capture the spectacle in life by forcing a specific point of view towards works of art in their natural surrounding. The photographs are of other works of art in galleries, but taken in such a way that the fixed point of view puts another layer between the observer and the spectacle of the original. Lawler recontextualizes images in terms of spectacle and commodity, similarly to how Sherrie Levine recontextualized images in terms of gender. The observer is forced to acknowledge that the work of art is "a function of public space" rather than just admiring it's aura. Once the commodification of the art has been realized, it can be seen more clearly how art interacts with society.
Louise Lawler's interview provided new insight and added to my understanding of photography as a form of art. Reading the artist's intent as said by the artist herself gave me a new appreciation for this particular form of art. I had trouble understanding and seeing Levine's work as art because I could not get over the idea that she is famous for uncropping and reprinting another photographers work. I agreed with her critics, she was not producing art but replicas. However, reading Krauss and Lawler's interview the meta-artistic aspect of the photograph struck me as a new dimension that we, as a class, have not yet explored.
I really liked Lawler's idea of the reproduction of a photo adding an index or a new layer of meaning to distort the original. Taking a picture of a picture or a work of art does not seem conventionally difficult to do, I take pictures of works of art and I do not consider myself anything close to an artist. Lawler plays with human memory in her photographs and our ability to recognize a work of art although it has been distorted. Her photographs imply the emotions which viewers infuse into works of art making an interaction with art an individual experience.
Reading this piece helped me understand the Levine piece slightly better as well. I misunderstood Levine as being almost sarcastic about Walker Evans' photos. However, what I now realize is that she was bringing a new perspective, showing that each viewer interacts with photographs differently bringing different emotions. An image should not be regarded as proof of anything because the context and frame (including the gender of the photographer) change the emotions of the photo.
In the beginning of the interviewLouise Lawler says something that immediately clicked with something Walter Benjamin said in his piece, "The work works in the process of its reception. I don't want the work to be accompanied by anything that doesn't accompany it in the real world" (192). Here, Lawler is referring to reservations about doing an interview. She doesn't want to reveal too much about the work, or interpret the work, because it has a certain context where it is displayed. This context helps interpret the work, along with the sentiment of the viewer. Benjamin would relate this to his "aura" he frequently references. A work of art in its environment has a certain aura, an authenticity, and it seems that Lawlers works have that aura in the museum, or the gallery, or wherever. In their place, they are most effective and affective to the viewer.
This point is extremely interesting because Lawler is still a photographer, but her pictures seem to work differently than most other photos. Like Benjamin points out, photography is mechanically reproduced and makes its way to the viewer in many different ways. In any case, it lacks authenticity and an aura because it doesn't have that "home" that a painting or sculpture or whatever does. There isn't an original or even only one copy that was created for one space. From this quote of Lawlers, though, we can infer that she is saying her pieces work best in that space, and the viewer needs to come there to interpret it.
Lawler's work confuses me. Most of her parts of the interview confuse me. However I enjoy looking at some of her pieces because they truly are fascinating. We looked at the piece with the tourine and Pollack in the beginning and after reading this interview and seeing how different her artwork is, I have a better appreciation for that piece. Showing us the Pollack in that new environment is puzzling at first, and we do need to contemplate it for a while before we can feel satisfied. At least that is how it was for me. Trying to look at the Pollack piece within her piece is impossible, so we must then step back and veiw the entire photograph for what it is. I am still not sure what that is, but I know that her photos weren't necessarily supposed to be straight forward. I imagine that the concepts behind it were more important than the composition or color in the actual photograph itself. On page 194 she says "A gallery generates meaning through the type of work it chooses to show." To me, this reiterates the fact that the actual subject matter isn't as important as the meaning behind it (plus others) when looking at a piece by Lawler.
This point is extremely interesting because Lawler is still a photographer, but her pictures seem to work differently than most other photos. Like Benjamin points out, photography is mechanically reproduced and makes its way to the viewer in many different ways. In any case, it lacks authenticity and an aura because it doesn't have that "home" that a painting or sculpture or whatever does. There isn't an original or even only one copy that was created for one space. From this quote of Lawlers, though, we can infer that she is saying her pieces work best in that space, and the viewer needs to come there to interpret it.
Lawler's work confuses me. Most of her parts of the interview confuse me. However I enjoy looking at some of her pieces because they truly are fascinating. We looked at the piece with the tourine and Pollack in the beginning and after reading this interview and seeing how different her artwork is, I have a better appreciation for that piece. Showing us the Pollack in that new environment is puzzling at first, and we do need to contemplate it for a while before we can feel satisfied. At least that is how it was for me. Trying to look at the Pollack piece within her piece is impossible, so we must then step back and veiw the entire photograph for what it is. I am still not sure what that is, but I know that her photos weren't necessarily supposed to be straight forward. I imagine that the concepts behind it were more important than the composition or color in the actual photograph itself. On page 194 she says "A gallery generates meaning through the type of work it chooses to show." To me, this reiterates the fact that the actual subject matter isn't as important as the meaning behind it (plus others) when looking at a piece by Lawler.
Louise Lawler
It was very interesting to read about Louise Lawler and learn about another artist’s perspective on art. The interview was very informative and allowed the readers to understand her concepts and ideas behind her works. It gives off the sensation of being the artist. The first reading however I enjoyed slightly more because I wouldn’t have ever imagined a paperweight every being a form of photography.
Once again the Walter Benjamin is the determinant factor in all of photography’s aspects, which is probably the mention of his “aura” is brought up. Lawler strongly believes in reproduction, as seen by the multitude of paperweight series she produced. Benjamin’s concept of the aura is corrupted because of the constant reproduction of Lawler’s images but yet does not oppose Benjamin’s idea of the photographic image bringing closeness to its audience. The paper weight like photography brings “far away things close to us, miniaturizing them for us so as to give us a sense of possessing them.” The paperweight becomes a commodity and is available for anyone to get sucked into its own little world of vision. I never envisioned a paperweight to be such a respected form of art. Also in lawler’s explanation of the paperweight, there are different worlds of vision that are developed. There is the first the viewer looking into the lens who is engulfed in the situation within the space provided where one is either watching the situation with the feeling of being watched. On the other side of the lens, or the side where the objects are contained, we can refer back to emotion that Benjamin describes as a sense of closeness and possession.
Once again the Walter Benjamin is the determinant factor in all of photography’s aspects, which is probably the mention of his “aura” is brought up. Lawler strongly believes in reproduction, as seen by the multitude of paperweight series she produced. Benjamin’s concept of the aura is corrupted because of the constant reproduction of Lawler’s images but yet does not oppose Benjamin’s idea of the photographic image bringing closeness to its audience. The paper weight like photography brings “far away things close to us, miniaturizing them for us so as to give us a sense of possessing them.” The paperweight becomes a commodity and is available for anyone to get sucked into its own little world of vision. I never envisioned a paperweight to be such a respected form of art. Also in lawler’s explanation of the paperweight, there are different worlds of vision that are developed. There is the first the viewer looking into the lens who is engulfed in the situation within the space provided where one is either watching the situation with the feeling of being watched. On the other side of the lens, or the side where the objects are contained, we can refer back to emotion that Benjamin describes as a sense of closeness and possession.
Louise Lawler and Perception
In “Louise Lawler: Souvenir Memories,” Krauss discusses Lawler’s particular style of changing the viewer’s perspective by photographing art installations and introducing distorting lenses. This reminds me of the efforts by Levine where she focuses art on the viewer’s response and the photographer’s gaze by photographing the works of Evans. The obvious difference is that Levine’s works are nearly identical replicas of Evan’s while Lawler photographs other works in a new time and space. Both, however, directs the viewer to analyze the role of perspective by adding an additional layer of indexical distance between him and the actual event. To me, the effects of this extra distance in Lawler and Levine’s works are completely different. While Levine’s work invites the viewer to investigate the different meanings that might result from a feminine or masculine gaze, as Krauss suggests, Lawler’s indexical distortions are a reflection on workings of human memory. As the act of creating and retrieving a memory would distort an event, Lawler’s photographs distort their objects through the use of a distorting lens. Similarly, as each viewer might perceive the exact same event differently through his prejudices and focus, the same scene can be photographed differently if a different camera or lens is used. To me, this distortive aspect of memory is made even more significant due to the traditional view of photograph as evidence and proof. While an individual’s personal recollection of an event is often questioned based on his history, photographic evidence is almost always perceived as undisputable proof. Lawler’s photographs work against this notion by literally distorting their subjects, reminding viewers that the photograph can be an imperfect index. Thus, her work also adds a new dimension to the concept of the optical unconscious. In light of Lawler’s work, the optical unconscious is not just about the details which can be captured by the camera and missed by the unaided eye. It also includes details that can be added by the camera by the simple act of creating an index. These distortions are all the more fascinating as falsified images, through either camerawork or digital manipulation, are more commonplace than ever before.
Louise Lawler
It was really interesting reading about Louise Lawler's interesting perspective on photography and how her eccentric personality affected her artwork. An interview is such a great way to captivate the reader amost instantaneously. However, although Crimp's interview was interesting, I found the first reading to be fun also.
I really like how this whole class is wrapping together. Photography seems to be a world of its own where all artists are intertwined. However, I tend to see Walter Benjamin as the father of the analysis of photography. The classic debate over the validity of photography as an art was addressed by him as well as many other issues and predictions. Lawler takes on the aspect of how art becomes a commodity in the setting of its residence. Many times its abode is shared with a tureen or old wooden furniture. This makes the artwork a commodity, just like any other thing you could buy in the store. Rosaline Krauss talks about how the image has an original and a sign. The sign of the original is the second version that is identical to the original....but not really. The sign represents the many ways the original can function in places outside of museums. "The gleams and reflections that itnerest Lawler, as she photographs works of modernist art within their present conditions of commodification- ... are avatars of this pervasive condition of the sign."
Lawler tries to recapture Walter Benjamin's aura in her works of art, especially her paperweights. The paperweights are very much like photographic rerepresentations of works that have already been made. However, they recapture the aura, unlike other photographs, because they are placed under a tiny glass dome. The dome functions as the lens, focusing the eye on this tiny point of the room that would not be focused on if it werent for the picture. In untitled (Salon Hodler), the room's natural focus would be either the furiture or the pictures separately; however, the photo combines the two, but neither the furniture nor the pictures are completley shown. This picture "enacts the relationship to photography" beacuse "each crystal half-sphere presents itself as a lens, one through which one peers as through a camera's viewfinder." Lawler's work is both art and photography combined, and brings back Walter Benjamin's aura that so few photographs are able to capture.
I really like how this whole class is wrapping together. Photography seems to be a world of its own where all artists are intertwined. However, I tend to see Walter Benjamin as the father of the analysis of photography. The classic debate over the validity of photography as an art was addressed by him as well as many other issues and predictions. Lawler takes on the aspect of how art becomes a commodity in the setting of its residence. Many times its abode is shared with a tureen or old wooden furniture. This makes the artwork a commodity, just like any other thing you could buy in the store. Rosaline Krauss talks about how the image has an original and a sign. The sign of the original is the second version that is identical to the original....but not really. The sign represents the many ways the original can function in places outside of museums. "The gleams and reflections that itnerest Lawler, as she photographs works of modernist art within their present conditions of commodification- ... are avatars of this pervasive condition of the sign."
Lawler tries to recapture Walter Benjamin's aura in her works of art, especially her paperweights. The paperweights are very much like photographic rerepresentations of works that have already been made. However, they recapture the aura, unlike other photographs, because they are placed under a tiny glass dome. The dome functions as the lens, focusing the eye on this tiny point of the room that would not be focused on if it werent for the picture. In untitled (Salon Hodler), the room's natural focus would be either the furiture or the pictures separately; however, the photo combines the two, but neither the furniture nor the pictures are completley shown. This picture "enacts the relationship to photography" beacuse "each crystal half-sphere presents itself as a lens, one through which one peers as through a camera's viewfinder." Lawler's work is both art and photography combined, and brings back Walter Benjamin's aura that so few photographs are able to capture.
Prominence Given, Authority Taken
I found this interview to be different than anything that we've read so far. Here, we actually get to see exactly what the photographer was thinking and what she was going for with her work. Talking about her book, "An Arrangement of Pictures", Louise Lawyer actually provides direct commentary on her ideas and what her work means. Although the definition was as confusing as her work, it was a rare occurence that we do not have to guess what was trying to be accomplished in a work.
Also, while talking about "An Arrangement of Pictures", there actually is an arrangement of her pictures throughout the interview. I do not know if they are compiled in the same way that they are in her book, but we get to see her work on the side of the conversation. I wish there was text like she says she has accompanying her photographs in her book because I don't understand them. Even with her discussion, I don't get her photographs. I find the display of other people's work in them an interesting idea, but some of the stuff she does goes a little far for me to understand. "Federal Offense" is one of them.
I like her idea of approaching something without any prior knowledge of it. She says on page 195, " You know, I'm not even comfortable taking photographs when I know what I'm taking. I feel as if approaching something with too much clarity in advance could eliminate possibilities". It would probably be a unique experience to explore a realm of unknown dimension or venture into an unfamiliar place to work with it. The pictures would probably show your interpretation. It would be even greater to learn about what you were photographing or explore what you were trying to do later. I can see why Lawyer would enjoy this type of photography, but as an outside viewer, it is hard to see what was going on. Later, on page 198, she discusses her playing with the different views you get after seeing something again: "The recognition factor changes perception." This is the exact opposite of her previous approach. Instead of knowing nothing about something, you have a different memory of it and can now examine it from a different view. Like she said, this changes perspective and asks questions about what you really know about a subject.
This was not a very interesting text until I started to put myself in Lawyer's shoes and thought about why someone would take these kinds of pictures. My reflection of what I think her process could be with this type of photography made it interesting.
Also, while talking about "An Arrangement of Pictures", there actually is an arrangement of her pictures throughout the interview. I do not know if they are compiled in the same way that they are in her book, but we get to see her work on the side of the conversation. I wish there was text like she says she has accompanying her photographs in her book because I don't understand them. Even with her discussion, I don't get her photographs. I find the display of other people's work in them an interesting idea, but some of the stuff she does goes a little far for me to understand. "Federal Offense" is one of them.
I like her idea of approaching something without any prior knowledge of it. She says on page 195, " You know, I'm not even comfortable taking photographs when I know what I'm taking. I feel as if approaching something with too much clarity in advance could eliminate possibilities". It would probably be a unique experience to explore a realm of unknown dimension or venture into an unfamiliar place to work with it. The pictures would probably show your interpretation. It would be even greater to learn about what you were photographing or explore what you were trying to do later. I can see why Lawyer would enjoy this type of photography, but as an outside viewer, it is hard to see what was going on. Later, on page 198, she discusses her playing with the different views you get after seeing something again: "The recognition factor changes perception." This is the exact opposite of her previous approach. Instead of knowing nothing about something, you have a different memory of it and can now examine it from a different view. Like she said, this changes perspective and asks questions about what you really know about a subject.
This was not a very interesting text until I started to put myself in Lawyer's shoes and thought about why someone would take these kinds of pictures. My reflection of what I think her process could be with this type of photography made it interesting.
Interview with Louise Lawler – Douglas Crimp
An interview? What an interesting way to arrange an artist, like Louise Lawler’s thoughts and opinions on her own artwork and dedication to the craft of photography. Lawler has many different approaches to art such as the installation photography, the wall text, the gallery announcement, and the art book. Crimp comments on LL’s art form by saying, “…makes it perhaps odd to describe her work as art rather than as some form of intervention into ways that other already existing artworks are presented or being readied for presentation or being withheld from presentation” (191).
It is pretty clear through the writing of this descriptive interview that Lawler is a complicated person and gets her artistic thrills from confounding artwork and making something so familiar seem so foreign by changing its meaning completely. In her book, “An Arrangement of Pictures” she claims there’s a difference between what is shown and how the pictures actually exist in various formats and sizes in my work. Why does LL do what she does? What significance does this hold for her or is there really any significance at all? All I was able to conclude from this interview is that LL’s work and thinking process behind her work is anything but straightforward. Art for LL is part parcel of a cumulative and collective enterprise and there are many things that go into a work of art. Overall, her perspective on art was slightly confusing to understand and interpret but LL just may be one of those artists that were not meant to understand completely.
"Interview With Louise Lawler" -Maya
Lois Lawler is someone i admire for her exploration of different mediums in creating and presenting her art. My favorite part of the interview was in the very beginning, when Lawler explains why she does not like to give interviews or talk about her work. "My reservations are about wanting to foreground the work and not the artist." This is very different than some artists, for example Sherrie Levine, who chose to foreground the artist, and make the person and background of the piece its essence. Lawler, on the other hand, wants her work to stand alone; "The work works in the process of its reception. I don't want the work to be accompanied by anything that doesn't accompany it in the real world." Basically, according to Lawler, what you see is what you see. There is nothing beyond the piece that is not actually there.
Another striking thing about the Lawler interview was her description of art as a process. "I'm not even comfortable taking photographs when i know what I'm taking. I feel as if approaching something with too much clarity i advance could eliminate possibilities...what actually produces a work is the activity of producing it, having to make adjustments as you proceed." This is exactly what one of my painting teachers is always talking about- that it is best to start something without too much of a preconceived idea, because painting, or any type of art, is about CREATING something and the process you go about to do this. Although i do like to plan before i paint, i defiantly see the merit in what Lawler is saying. I do not think that any art has been completed exactly the way the artist intended in the beginning, because it is impossible to do something without making changes and gaining new insights along the way. Similarly, Lawler also mentions the merit in working collaboratively. "Working collaboratively allows you to do things that you wold not otherwise do...you think about another person's thinking as well as your own, and this acts as an acknowledgment that no work is really produced by one person."
Another striking thing about the Lawler interview was her description of art as a process. "I'm not even comfortable taking photographs when i know what I'm taking. I feel as if approaching something with too much clarity i advance could eliminate possibilities...what actually produces a work is the activity of producing it, having to make adjustments as you proceed." This is exactly what one of my painting teachers is always talking about- that it is best to start something without too much of a preconceived idea, because painting, or any type of art, is about CREATING something and the process you go about to do this. Although i do like to plan before i paint, i defiantly see the merit in what Lawler is saying. I do not think that any art has been completed exactly the way the artist intended in the beginning, because it is impossible to do something without making changes and gaining new insights along the way. Similarly, Lawler also mentions the merit in working collaboratively. "Working collaboratively allows you to do things that you wold not otherwise do...you think about another person's thinking as well as your own, and this acts as an acknowledgment that no work is really produced by one person."
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Louise Lawler - Lauren
After completing these two readings, I thought to myself, what could I possibly say? Not only was I totally lost as to what was said, but nothing really struck me as profound. When I went back through, though, I began to realize that I was getting frustrated with conceptual art and artists.
We have read so many essays that refer back to Walter Benjamin, quoting him in regards to aura and photography’s effect on art and photography’s ability to document anything and the effects of replication…. So many of the authors seem to assume that conceptual art merely fulfilled Benjamin’s prophecies. I’m starting to see it differently. I think that conceptual artists took from Benjamin’s ideas and used them to create this bizarre, replication-based style. In other words, I think that had it not been for Benjamin, the obsession with photographing other artists’ works would have never come about. I find these practices absolutely absurd, and the sole intention of these artists is merely to confuse the viewer. Perhaps it is the realization that we can play with reality and mess with perception that gets these artists rolling on the floor laughing and saying, “Look at those people! They don’t know which was is up or down!”
Put aside the debate of authorship, what really needs to be determined is no long whether or not photography is art, but rather whether or not photographs of other photographs or other art—especially if that piece is by another artist—is itself art.
We have read so many essays that refer back to Walter Benjamin, quoting him in regards to aura and photography’s effect on art and photography’s ability to document anything and the effects of replication…. So many of the authors seem to assume that conceptual art merely fulfilled Benjamin’s prophecies. I’m starting to see it differently. I think that conceptual artists took from Benjamin’s ideas and used them to create this bizarre, replication-based style. In other words, I think that had it not been for Benjamin, the obsession with photographing other artists’ works would have never come about. I find these practices absolutely absurd, and the sole intention of these artists is merely to confuse the viewer. Perhaps it is the realization that we can play with reality and mess with perception that gets these artists rolling on the floor laughing and saying, “Look at those people! They don’t know which was is up or down!”
Put aside the debate of authorship, what really needs to be determined is no long whether or not photography is art, but rather whether or not photographs of other photographs or other art—especially if that piece is by another artist—is itself art.
Louise Lawler - Sierra
While reading the interview with Louise Lawler, I found myself becoming more and more fascinated with her style and with her person. Usually, for no apparent reason, I assume conceptual artists are a bit different than the rest of us. However, Lawler comes across as an extremely intelligent and articulate woman who justifies her work well. I really liked Lawler’s statement, “I don’t object to providing information about the work, but to giving an interpretation” (193). I respect this idea because sometimes I feel that certain artists do try to force an interpretation onto the viewer. Lawler’s style, albeit a bit odd, allows the observer to interpret the art for herself. I feel this makes the art have more personal value, for when it is looked at a story (or meaning) is seen that is specific to one person. I love the fact that the same piece of art can have multiple meanings for multiple people. It is a compliment to Lawler in that she tries to incorporate this ideal into her art.
During the interview, Douglas Crimp mentions, “…your work functions more because we don’t get the point” (197). At first I thought this statement was slightly ridiculous because, honestly, who wants to stare at a photograph for hours and not understand it. However, I then thought about it more and realized that immediately understanding what an image is trying to convey takes away from the art. Part of the whole “art experience” is initially not understanding and having to unravel the mystery of the image. Lawler’s unique style relies on this desire to discover the meaning of the image and understand the image for oneself, not somebody else.
During the interview, Douglas Crimp mentions, “…your work functions more because we don’t get the point” (197). At first I thought this statement was slightly ridiculous because, honestly, who wants to stare at a photograph for hours and not understand it. However, I then thought about it more and realized that immediately understanding what an image is trying to convey takes away from the art. Part of the whole “art experience” is initially not understanding and having to unravel the mystery of the image. Lawler’s unique style relies on this desire to discover the meaning of the image and understand the image for oneself, not somebody else.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Photography's Expanded Field
This article was pretty hard to grasp. It talks about a new form of photography: Digital recording. The question whether photography is an art or science is revisited one again, with the introduction of this new technology. Artists use projection to show their photographs. I didn't quite understand the part were Baker talks about "objects in crisis". Why does that make it contemporary? It captures objects in transformation, sometimes extended show time to more than 24 hours by playing the film very slowly. I'm not too sure what the effect of it is supposed to be. Baker introduces statis and narrativity. Different forms of sound without picture or picture without sound appear. Or film with motion or still images. I was intrigued by the not statis quality: how Cindy Sherman falls under that category, every though they are film stills, they are meant to be part of a greater force. Also "counter presence" was interesting. In projecting open ended series of prints, it allows the viewer to fill in the narrative and the story in their mind, making them an important part of the equation.
An interview with Louise Lawler
Douglas Crimp is right to say that there is a blurry line being drawn into what becomes art. When is a photograph actually art. He focuses on Louise Lawler who is taking photographs of her own and other artists' work. So where is the art? Is it in her photograph, or the other people's work. He questions if it is just an installation shot? I feel the same confusion. When we look at photographs in class, sometimes, they are photographs of photographs. So it the original photograph the art, and the picture of it just a documentation or "journalistic" aspect of it? Like the Marcel Duchamp toilet seat. Is the photograph of it the art? Or the toilet part the art? Louise Lawler adds another dimension to this blurr in photographing documents about the art, like the reflection of a painting, or the sign next to it, or the information in a pamphlet about a work she did. Which one is the art part? She refuses to answer the question directly, kind of saying its both and it is whereever the viewer wants it to be. She also adds in that the art can lay in producing an art work of another person's art work. IT just becomes a whole tangled mess. I liked the Andy Warhol and Marilyn Monroe example. With two identical pictures, she asks, is it andy warhol that makes you cry or marilyn monroe? Who is affecting you? Is it marilyn since she is who is in the photograph? Or is it andy warhol since he took and created the photograph or painting? Or is it Louise Lawler, for placing them and getting you to think about it?Like the issue we spoke about in class with Sherry levine and that picture of some guy's son. Is the son the artist? Or is the guy that took the picture? Or is it her for placing emphasis on it? I love this credibility and authenticity issue and would definitely like to explore it further.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
As soon as Kris showed the picture of the cowboy on a horse, we all recognized it as a Marberollo (I have no idea how to spell this!) advertisement and then were taken aback to see that a photographer had attached their name to it. How can one copy someone else’s work, claim it as their own, and expect it to be accepted as art? Sherry Levine used a similar method of operation in her work, but instead of a rephotographing a public advertisement, she rephotographed famous straight photographs. I commented in class that the rephotographer has no claim to authorship because the idea behind the photograph is not their own. I think Sherry Levine would agree. Her intention was more of an ontological critique than an artistic endeavor. Singerman emphasized that Sherry Levine’s photographs, “After Walker Evans,” was a postmodernist attempt at challenging prevailing ideas of authorship and the notion of original art. I applaud Levine for her brilliant (and extremely progressive) idea to make a critique of art using art.
Singerman’s analysis of Sherry Levine’s work expands on Crimp’s argument, which was based on Benjamin’s theories. Things are finally starting to come together! It seems that we are reaching a point where we have learned, read, and discussed enough photographic discourse to construct a general framework with which to approach complex articles like this one. Singerman brought up the idea of the presence of absence of a photograph. Crump argued that a photograph has a presence because what was once in front of the camera is now absent. The presence is different from the aura, as defined by Benjamin. Presence has nothing to do with authenticity but rather with the magic of seeing something which is not really there. Singerman says that Sherry Levine’s rephotographs also have a presence of absence--“they have existed not as the images present on the wall, but as an absence in those images, as evidence of a strategy, the result of a procedure, a process in the art world” (78). The presence of a rephotograph is derived from the absence of the original photo. The effect is similar, but slightly different than presence. Singerman says that after looking at Levine’s photos, “I was pulling myself up and out of Evans’ images and insisting instead on the frames, the mat, and the glass; that is, on the Levines” (80). The observer of a rephotograph is led away from the image until it becomes absent. The non-image part of the rephotograph fills in for the absence of the image, creating a unique sort of presence. Singerman’s argument implicitly supports Crimp’s argument. If photographs did not have a presence, the copy of the copy would be interchangeable and therefore, the re-photograph would not be received by the viewer with skepticism. Levine’s work suggests that although photography is a mechanically reproducible art, there is something auratic about a photograph.
Singerman’s analysis of Sherry Levine’s work expands on Crimp’s argument, which was based on Benjamin’s theories. Things are finally starting to come together! It seems that we are reaching a point where we have learned, read, and discussed enough photographic discourse to construct a general framework with which to approach complex articles like this one. Singerman brought up the idea of the presence of absence of a photograph. Crump argued that a photograph has a presence because what was once in front of the camera is now absent. The presence is different from the aura, as defined by Benjamin. Presence has nothing to do with authenticity but rather with the magic of seeing something which is not really there. Singerman says that Sherry Levine’s rephotographs also have a presence of absence--“they have existed not as the images present on the wall, but as an absence in those images, as evidence of a strategy, the result of a procedure, a process in the art world” (78). The presence of a rephotograph is derived from the absence of the original photo. The effect is similar, but slightly different than presence. Singerman says that after looking at Levine’s photos, “I was pulling myself up and out of Evans’ images and insisting instead on the frames, the mat, and the glass; that is, on the Levines” (80). The observer of a rephotograph is led away from the image until it becomes absent. The non-image part of the rephotograph fills in for the absence of the image, creating a unique sort of presence. Singerman’s argument implicitly supports Crimp’s argument. If photographs did not have a presence, the copy of the copy would be interchangeable and therefore, the re-photograph would not be received by the viewer with skepticism. Levine’s work suggests that although photography is a mechanically reproducible art, there is something auratic about a photograph.
Cindy Sherman
In Rosalind Krauss's essay on Cindy Sherman's body of work, several different interpretations of their meaning are presented. The first is the perception that the film stills are based off of scenes in real movies, and that the images are copies meant to inspire the viewer to "recall the original film image." However, it is pointed out that Sherman's photos are not based on any movie, thus to call them copies would be inaccurate. Yet, the fact of their familiarity to the observer does suggest their reproduction from some other medium, presenting the paradox of a copy without an original. The reason that the images feel familiar is that what Sherman is really presenting to the observer is stereotypes of women in familiar roles. Neither is the role of the woman in the image determined by anything about her personal self, as can be seen by the change in character from one image to the next despite them all being portrayed by Sherman, sometimes even in the same costume.
Other interpretations include one proposed by Barthes, which is that the images are participating in a kind of myth. The myth is composed of signifiers--the aesthetic qualities of the photograph--and signified--the idea being represented. The combination of these creates an ideological assertion about the idea being signified. In the Sherman images the myth being asserted is that through the use of film-style images, she is able to express her emotions in terms of universal truths that the viewer can empathize with. However, the context of the works suggest a different meaning, by presenting an interchangeable aspect of the individual woman across a range of pictures. Then the myth is exposed to show something deeper about the nature of femininity in a patriarchal society, how women are perceived not so much individual agents but as passive objects defined by their surroundings.
Other interpretations include one proposed by Barthes, which is that the images are participating in a kind of myth. The myth is composed of signifiers--the aesthetic qualities of the photograph--and signified--the idea being represented. The combination of these creates an ideological assertion about the idea being signified. In the Sherman images the myth being asserted is that through the use of film-style images, she is able to express her emotions in terms of universal truths that the viewer can empathize with. However, the context of the works suggest a different meaning, by presenting an interchangeable aspect of the individual woman across a range of pictures. Then the myth is exposed to show something deeper about the nature of femininity in a patriarchal society, how women are perceived not so much individual agents but as passive objects defined by their surroundings.
Levine: Photographing Photographs
From what I gathered in Singerman’s “Seeing Sherrie Levine,” the author traces his own responses to Levine’s series of photographs “After Walker Evans” as his own understanding progressed. Although Levine’s photographs may, on the surface, appear as nothing more than reproductions of other Evan’s and Lang’s photographs, Singerman argues that by simply reproducing and recontextualizing other photographs with a camera Levine is able to appropriate these images as her own. These are the first photographs we viewed in class where the pieces’ primary focus is that of the viewer of the photograph instead of the subjects within. This attention to the viewer is only possible through photographs of other photographs as photographs of anything else would just elicit the response to the subject. While the photographs by Evans and Lang capture the scenes of destitution in a specific time in American history, Levine is able to reinterpret these photographs focusing on the way in which the photographic medium directs the viewer’s response rather than the actual empathy of the viewer towards the subject. Through such, Levine is able to appropriate these images as her own though superficially they may appear the same as their subject. Singerman also discusses the feminine and masculine perspectives of the photograph, which was quite confusing to me. He cites pornography as an example of the masculine photographic perspective in which female subjects are objectified. However, to Singerman, perspectives can be more complex. He cites the quotation regarding a child walking into his parents’ bedroom to illustrate how photographic perspectives can be split, in which the viewer both simultaneously fixates on the subject and wants to look away. I believe that this is the primary interpretation of Levine’s work by Singerman. As photographs of any other grotesque can also cause the viewer to be both simultaneously interested and turned off, it is only through the process of photographing photographs that Levine is able to focus not on the subject of the photographed photograph but the response of the viewer to the photograph.
"Seeing Sherrie Levine" - Sierra
The article “Seeing Sherrie Levine” was definitely not what I expected. The topics discussed in this essay ranged from mundane to somewhat explicit. Levine’s photographic techniques and style are so unique that I still have trouble actually understanding where some of her ideas come from. I found the statement, “Levine’s rephotographs initiate and retrace “a crisis of phenomenality,” a sight of scene that “can no longer be simply perceived, but rather read and interpreted” reminiscent of what we were discussing in class (128). Viewing rephotographed pictures makes the observer see the image from a different perspective and actually question why the image was important in the first place. Although I still find it odd that Levine photographed other artists’ images, I think, while causing some controversy, her process elevated the importance of the original photographs.
I also found the comparison between Levine’s photographs and pornography interesting. The author stated that pornography directly addresses the viewer (150). This differs greatly from Levine’s images in that her pictures are of other images, so the viewer does not connect directly with it. When looking at Levine’s images, the viewer is not directly seeing the original, for there is a layer between the original image and the observer. It is almost as if it is being seen through somebody else’s point of view. Levine’s style allows people to see famous images from a different perspective and makes the viewer appreciate the original even more.
I also found the comparison between Levine’s photographs and pornography interesting. The author stated that pornography directly addresses the viewer (150). This differs greatly from Levine’s images in that her pictures are of other images, so the viewer does not connect directly with it. When looking at Levine’s images, the viewer is not directly seeing the original, for there is a layer between the original image and the observer. It is almost as if it is being seen through somebody else’s point of view. Levine’s style allows people to see famous images from a different perspective and makes the viewer appreciate the original even more.
Seeing Sherrie Levine
The concept of rephotography is a little confusing to grasp with regard to this essay. Sherrie Levine takes photos of photos taken by Walker Evans. Singerman makes three points that I find interesting. He says that with Levine's work, she is pushed into the subject matter of the photograph, that the photograph has a completely different meaning because it was taken by a woman, and that there is a fourth look.
"It lets me put Levine across the colon and into the list." The list consists of the subjects of what Walker Evans likes to photograph, such as "women, nature, children, the poor, and the insane." Her value is based on what viewers make of the photograph, that is, she is judged just like the subject matter. "levine positions herself...as an object on the other side of hte picture." levine is seen to be standing with those in the picture, in "solidarity. " the photograph is then judged by the audience(who the essay calls men), and is sold as a commodity.
There is a strong debate over feminism and its relationship to photography in this essay. Singerman claims that the female photographer is playing the role of the transvestite because she is trying to take the picture from a man's point of view. Levine is seen as envious of Evans because of her "resentment at the fact that her name will never be as glamorous as Walker Evans." But frankly, I argue that Singerman is making Levine's name more glamorous simply by writing this essay with ehr as the central figure of analysis. He even calls her "appropriations" a result of her "penis envy." This is contrary to the perspective of the of this penis envy is the masquerade. This is putting Levine assuming the image, and therefore making it feminine. Levine's masquerade is "as a female artist; she enacts the readings adn plays the part of the 'woman artist' in quotes, the artist's Binary Other." Now we are getting somewhere. Levine is not envious of Evan's masculinity and ability to take a photograph, but rather she si celebrating it and making the viewer take a second look at this already beautiful masterpiece. She is the Binary Other of hte artist. She gives the photo new meanign because she is a woman. People view the image in a different way.
The fourth look is only apparent in rephotography because it has already been seen. The spectator becomes the subject, and since Levine has vanished into the photograph, the spectator, who has already seen the original, is left alone standing before the photograph. "The one looking stands not on the side of power, , but is instead riven from the outset by the fear f discovery; the fear not only of being caught, but of being caught knowing. Certainly, the sight before me knows, and my coming to knowledge amounts to guilt." This passage reminded me a lot of the "primal scene", as the essay brings up, of Adam and Eve. The essay talks about the primal scene of the mother adn father; however, the primal scene can be seen in a different way. Adam and Eve were not onyl caught standing in front of the forbidden tree, but they were caught knowing, adn that made the situation so much worse. The knowledge was equivalent to guilt, and for this, the viewer is overwhelmed with the guilty feeling of standing in front of the paiting. The spectator is not guilty before God liek Adam and Eve, but "the fourth look glares from the place of the law."
"It lets me put Levine across the colon and into the list." The list consists of the subjects of what Walker Evans likes to photograph, such as "women, nature, children, the poor, and the insane." Her value is based on what viewers make of the photograph, that is, she is judged just like the subject matter. "levine positions herself...as an object on the other side of hte picture." levine is seen to be standing with those in the picture, in "solidarity. " the photograph is then judged by the audience(who the essay calls men), and is sold as a commodity.
There is a strong debate over feminism and its relationship to photography in this essay. Singerman claims that the female photographer is playing the role of the transvestite because she is trying to take the picture from a man's point of view. Levine is seen as envious of Evans because of her "resentment at the fact that her name will never be as glamorous as Walker Evans." But frankly, I argue that Singerman is making Levine's name more glamorous simply by writing this essay with ehr as the central figure of analysis. He even calls her "appropriations" a result of her "penis envy." This is contrary to the perspective of the of this penis envy is the masquerade. This is putting Levine assuming the image, and therefore making it feminine. Levine's masquerade is "as a female artist; she enacts the readings adn plays the part of the 'woman artist' in quotes, the artist's Binary Other." Now we are getting somewhere. Levine is not envious of Evan's masculinity and ability to take a photograph, but rather she si celebrating it and making the viewer take a second look at this already beautiful masterpiece. She is the Binary Other of hte artist. She gives the photo new meanign because she is a woman. People view the image in a different way.
The fourth look is only apparent in rephotography because it has already been seen. The spectator becomes the subject, and since Levine has vanished into the photograph, the spectator, who has already seen the original, is left alone standing before the photograph. "The one looking stands not on the side of power, , but is instead riven from the outset by the fear f discovery; the fear not only of being caught, but of being caught knowing. Certainly, the sight before me knows, and my coming to knowledge amounts to guilt." This passage reminded me a lot of the "primal scene", as the essay brings up, of Adam and Eve. The essay talks about the primal scene of the mother adn father; however, the primal scene can be seen in a different way. Adam and Eve were not onyl caught standing in front of the forbidden tree, but they were caught knowing, adn that made the situation so much worse. The knowledge was equivalent to guilt, and for this, the viewer is overwhelmed with the guilty feeling of standing in front of the paiting. The spectator is not guilty before God liek Adam and Eve, but "the fourth look glares from the place of the law."
The idea of a female photographer versus a male photographer never crossed my mind in reference to how the photograph affects the viewer, or how the photograph changes in it's overall meaning. When I look at Migrant Mother (Lange) or The Tenant Farmer's Wife (Evans), although I get different emotions, both are emotional because of the photographer. In the piece by Howard Singerman, people were quoted saying Lange's work is too sentimental while Evan's work is simply showing it how it is. This is what I got out of it. But I don't agree with that. I don't understand how you can look at one photograph of a woman and then at another and judge how the photographer operates, especially when they are very similar photograph's--in intent and in composition. Dorothea Lange was hired by the WPA to take photographs (which I believe were supposed to be artistic) of the way life was during the Dust Bowl, and Walker Evans did the same thing. He did it for his novel, which was for the public domain as well. Singerman also says that Lange's work is artificial and excessive. I don't understand what he means by that. Maybe he means her photos are set up before hand, while Evan's never interrupted the daily life of the people he shot. However, the picture of the family in the bedroom was set-up, just as much as any of Dorothea's could have been. I get the feeling he thinks Lange was trying to fake emotion that wasn't really present, but if anything, she just brought out the emotion that was present and allowed the audience to feel it as well. Evan's photographs do the same thing, but why is she persecuted for this?
I don't like the idea of woman photographers getting this scrutiny, so I appreciate (sort of) what Sherrie Levine did. I suppose by taking pictures of other artist's work she made people see that they were being sexist. Viewers having to step back and really consider what she was doing was probably very eye-opening at the time. I'm having a hard time fully grasping the sexism present because I don't feel that I look at works differently depending on the gender of the photographer. I am also uneasy of the idea of simply photographing someone else's work and claiming it as your own. But the interesting question of whose work that really is, is an interesting one to debate.
I don't like the idea of woman photographers getting this scrutiny, so I appreciate (sort of) what Sherrie Levine did. I suppose by taking pictures of other artist's work she made people see that they were being sexist. Viewers having to step back and really consider what she was doing was probably very eye-opening at the time. I'm having a hard time fully grasping the sexism present because I don't feel that I look at works differently depending on the gender of the photographer. I am also uneasy of the idea of simply photographing someone else's work and claiming it as your own. But the interesting question of whose work that really is, is an interesting one to debate.
Seeing Sherrie Levine
I found this essay very interesting and compelling. I admit that throughout the essay I was confused about what was the topic of discussion and the different people they were bringing up, however it brought up good ideas. When reading this article I came to the conclusion that Levine has done a series of “After Walker Evans” which are all photographs that imitate the original photographs of Walker Evans work from the FSA images of the 1930s. Levine’s artwork seems very unoriginal and I remember the discussion of whether this is considered an art being brought up in class. I personally believe think that this is an art, but then there is the question of what is art? As the essay progresses the writer claims that he “looked away not because there was nothing to see, but because I didn’t want to see what was there.” This refusal of looking at the image correlates to the concept of how Levine’s work was definitely unorthodox and how her views opposed the general population. The title of Levine’s work is deceiving in the sense it gives a false identity to what the viewers think. Singerman explains that his belief of the work from just viewing the title would be “the photograph’s absence, its historical supersession or its critical irrelevance.” What her images really reveal is not necessarily the absence but the presence of Walker Evan’s image. A lot of what Singerman proposes about Sherrie Levin is contradicting and often doesn’t make sense at all, but then again does art have to make sense?
Levine claims “ because I am a woman, those images became a woman’s work,” this quote I found highly interesting because the images she is referring to is her “After Walker Evan’s” which is the replication of Walker Evan’s FSA images of the 1930’s. This claim brings up the topic of “sexual difference” and which uncovered a whole new view for interpreting Levine’s work. This “sexual difference” is something that can only be seen by the reader and interpreted respectively. As Duchamp says it “brings the work in contact with the external world.”
Levine claims “ because I am a woman, those images became a woman’s work,” this quote I found highly interesting because the images she is referring to is her “After Walker Evan’s” which is the replication of Walker Evan’s FSA images of the 1930’s. This claim brings up the topic of “sexual difference” and which uncovered a whole new view for interpreting Levine’s work. This “sexual difference” is something that can only be seen by the reader and interpreted respectively. As Duchamp says it “brings the work in contact with the external world.”
Seeing Sherrie Levine – Howard Singerman
From my understanding of the essay, Sherrie Levine’s photos focus on an odd depiction of Walker Evans original photographs that have been previously printed. These destitute events that Evans captured occurred in the 1930s at a time when he was present to photograph. The author, Howard Singerman, describes Levine’s photos as completing a story in which they are titled “After Walker Evans”. I am a little confused as to what exactly she did with the photographs, but I do know that she re-photographed them to make them her own. This proved the original photograph to be “inimitable and the artist’s hand unavoidable” (127). With this, I can only help but question if she can really call these photographs her own? Focusing on the images reprinted in the reader was not enough to comprehend what Levine’s “After Walker Evans” photographs looked like, and hopefully there will be an opportunity to do so in class.
Singerman claims that, “Levine’s rephotographs initiate and retrace “a crisis of phenomenality,” a sight or scene that “can no longer be simply perceived, but rather read and interpreted” (128). Singerman claims that Levine’s photographs exude a presence that is different from that of Evans original print. There is an interesting type of perception that can be interpreted from Levine’s rephotographs and here the viewer is called upon to read and make a unique interpretation. I’m not quite sure I can agree with all of these statements made in this essay. What is so special about rephotographing someone else’s work and claiming it as your own? Singerman also mentioned the complicated issue of gender and the social meaning between Evan’s and Sherrie’s photographs and how these specific divisions play out for each artist. This went on for a few pages, and I honestly did not see how all of the arguments added up. The most interesting point made was that Sherrie’s photos are not quite like Evans in the sense that she tends to photograph objects of desire and focus on the specific positioning of her work. In Levine’s perspective there is no first look, but there is only looking after, in the theoretical sense of course.
Singerman claims that, “Levine’s rephotographs initiate and retrace “a crisis of phenomenality,” a sight or scene that “can no longer be simply perceived, but rather read and interpreted” (128). Singerman claims that Levine’s photographs exude a presence that is different from that of Evans original print. There is an interesting type of perception that can be interpreted from Levine’s rephotographs and here the viewer is called upon to read and make a unique interpretation. I’m not quite sure I can agree with all of these statements made in this essay. What is so special about rephotographing someone else’s work and claiming it as your own? Singerman also mentioned the complicated issue of gender and the social meaning between Evan’s and Sherrie’s photographs and how these specific divisions play out for each artist. This went on for a few pages, and I honestly did not see how all of the arguments added up. The most interesting point made was that Sherrie’s photos are not quite like Evans in the sense that she tends to photograph objects of desire and focus on the specific positioning of her work. In Levine’s perspective there is no first look, but there is only looking after, in the theoretical sense of course.
"Seeing Sherrie Levine" - Maya
I was really confused by this essay, and by Sherrie Levin in general. I can see the merit in something like the artist who photographed Marlboro ad's and blew them up to have them be looked at as art, but Levin only directly photographed other people's photographs, did not do ANYTHING else to them, yet claimed them as her own. To me, that's basically the same as re-printing someone else's work, and claiming that because YOU printed them, they are yours. I suppose what makes her project unique and "art" is because of the controversy it caused. Stingerman confused me as well, because i was not exactly sure what he was trying to get at in his essay. He wanted to re-visit the photographs, because the first time he saw them, he was too focused on what he THOUGHT he was going to see to actually see what was really there. But if he wanted to REsee them, then he'd still them with a notion that he was going to see something different from the first time, which is still a pre-conceived idea, which would STILL make it impossible for him to purley "see" the pictures. I didn't understand what Stingerman was getting at with his ideas of the difference between "seeing" something as Evan's and seeing them differently if they were Levin's. Even if the "artist" is different it is still the same image, so i don't think it makes the image any different just because one photographer is a man and one is a woman. Personally, when i look at art, i don't even know, or really care to know, who the artist is, i just like to look at the piece. So i think i was very hard for me to relate to Stingerman, because he seemed to be VERY concerned with the backgrounds of the photographs.
I am so confused. I didn't really like this essay because I was never too sure where it was going. I still don't get what Levine has done. Did she steal Walker Evans Photos and name them her own, in a fight because she's female? Was she trying to prove a point? Is that what rephotography is? Is it suddenly a different photograph, or interpreted differently once the artist is known to be female? "..Camouflaged as the search for rephotography, for a uniqueness that would protect both Evans and Levine by proving the original inimitable and the artist's hand unavoidable." Also Levine insists, "Because I am a woman, those images became a woman's work". I like the notion of the spectator playing an important part of the creative act, interpreting it in their own way. Does that make LEvine a spectator of her own work, since it's a copy of Walker's work? Is that where the mark idea comes into play?
"Seeing Sherrie Levine" - Lauren
Although Singerman’s bit about gender and the artist and their affect on their work based on their gender completely flew over my head, there was one part of his essay, “Seeing Sherrie Levine”, that really began to help me understand this affect of gender. While reading Singerman’s essay, I found it quite difficult to understand the troubles he experienced in viewing Sherrie Levine’s work probably because I have never seen them. From what I understand, they resemble, almost identically, the works she rephotographed, whether they be Walker Evans or Edward Weston.
The controversy over authorship aside, what really interested me was Singerman’s point about viewing these pieces, which were originally the works of men, as photographed by a woman. I found his point remarkably viable when I turned the page and looked at Walker Evan’s “Alabama Tenant Farmer’s Wife” in the light of a woman’s camera. In other words, when I look at this photograph as Evan’s work, I picture the subject as a weathered and worn woman, but one who could also stand up to Evans if she didn’t really want her photo taken, one who is a stern wall that is unmoving to the pressures of man or nature. If I were then to look at the photograph as Levine’s (original) work, the subject takes on an entirely different persona. Now, I picture her as on the verge of collapse, looking to Levine—another woman—for sympathy and support. She is no longer stern but rather distressed and torn between herself and her responsibilities.
Before now I have never considered the different effects an artist has on their work based on their gender, but now that I realize how prominent this aspect is, I think that it should be taken into consideration with every image viewed, alongside that of the piece’s title and the content of the image itself.
The controversy over authorship aside, what really interested me was Singerman’s point about viewing these pieces, which were originally the works of men, as photographed by a woman. I found his point remarkably viable when I turned the page and looked at Walker Evan’s “Alabama Tenant Farmer’s Wife” in the light of a woman’s camera. In other words, when I look at this photograph as Evan’s work, I picture the subject as a weathered and worn woman, but one who could also stand up to Evans if she didn’t really want her photo taken, one who is a stern wall that is unmoving to the pressures of man or nature. If I were then to look at the photograph as Levine’s (original) work, the subject takes on an entirely different persona. Now, I picture her as on the verge of collapse, looking to Levine—another woman—for sympathy and support. She is no longer stern but rather distressed and torn between herself and her responsibilities.
Before now I have never considered the different effects an artist has on their work based on their gender, but now that I realize how prominent this aspect is, I think that it should be taken into consideration with every image viewed, alongside that of the piece’s title and the content of the image itself.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism
Douglas Crimp starts by explaining that postmodernism, “…constitutes precisely the return of the repressed.” He continues by saying that it is also follows modernism with institutions that shape modernism which are the museum, art history, and photography. These foundations that he claims to support modernism can clearly be argued against by any individual. I would have to say that after pondering it for a bit these institutions seem fit for the course of modernism in the sense that they are all great representations of art and follow the direction in which art is able to transform (i.e. modernism).
Crimp also describes the condition of presence as a mark of representation. What I perceived the author meant by the word presence is that occurrence of not just something, an object or person, being in front of us as a present figure; it has to do with the notion of that something carrying presence. It also seems like we just can’t seem to get away from the logic of Walter Benjamin. Crimp focuses on the aura spoken of by Benjamin and how it is only available in a limited number of photos, not all have an aura. This I disagree with, because in every photo one is able to find a majestic underlining that creates an aura and makes a photo appear the way it does to a viewer.
This essay overall was easy to get through, but I would say a bit tough to comprehend and receive actual meanings from. The facts and opinions given by Douglas Crimp needed breaking down within the sentences in order to understand the entirety of the message. The text was a little dense but nothing that left the reader confused. I also think the small section on Sherrie Levine and Cindy Sherman was a great way to introduce our next reading and preface us on topics to come.
Monday, March 10, 2008
I felt as if I had a good grasp of Douglas Crump’s argument because he frequently alluded to the ideas presented by Walter Benjamin in Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. But it all seemed to come together in the Sherry Levine story. Sherry Levine took pictures of an already famous series of photographs by Edward Weston. The photographs were of his young son. She showed them to her friend, who said that “they only made him want to see the originals.” She then replied, “and the originals make you want to see that little boy, but when you see the boy, the art is gone” (98). The point of the anecdote is that the “use value” of photography, to continue in the Benjaminian framework, is in the representation of the object rather than the original form. Although the little boy is the authentic form, the art is in the photograph—a copy of the original form. All other mechanical reproductions of his photo move further and further from his authenticity as a person. Walter Benjamin claims that photography is revolutionary because it removes the work of art from the aura. He describes aura as the quality of a piece of art that is derived from its unique existence and contextualization in a particular place and time. A photograph, Benjamin claims, cannot have an aura because it is never an original. Crump nuances this idea and argues that although an original photo does not have an aura, it has a presence. He describes presence as “…a kind of increment to being there, a ghostly aspect of presence that is its excess, it supplement” (92). The presence of a photograph is derived from the exact opposite reasons that an original painting has an aura. A photo demands a presence because there is no original. Crump says of postmodernists, “The extraordinary presence of their work is effected through absence, through its unbridgeable distance from the original, from even the possibility of an original” (94). Postmodern photographs are legitimated by their presence because there is no point of reference to which they are confined. This is to say that the art is in their depiction of reality rather than the authenticity of the object of the photograph.
Photographic Postmodernism
Douglas Crimp's article on "The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism" is mainly a discussion of the idea of aura and how it relates to modern art photography and painting. It references the highly influential work "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin for much of its conceptual background relating to aura, which is defined as the work of art's unique finite and temporal existence as opposed to its universal reproducibility. It is observed that photography, through its reproducibility and multiplicity of existence, serves to undermine the work of art's aura, just as Benjamin had earlier described. For Crimp this led to a dilemma for high art as an institution to attempt to preserve any sort of aura that still existed in works of art. High art's reaction was to embrace not only the revival of expressionistic painting, but also art photography of the kind that had first served to undermine the aura of works of art. Expressionistic painting was ideologically opposed to the destruction of aura caused by mechanical reproduction, and was a wholehearted attempt to preserve and restore aura by "emphasizing the artist's hand or by creating highly individual visionary images that cannot be confused with one another."
However, art photography of the time, while breaking convention with traditional artistic forms, finally liberating the medium from the vestiges of photographic styles derived from painting, was developing an aura of its own, as was mentioned in the Jeff Wall essay "Marks of Indifference". This newfound aura surrounding art photography made photographs subject to the kind of connoisseurship that paradoxically had been made unimportant by mechanical reproduction. However, Crimp argues that the aura of art photography is fundamentally different from other artforms in the sense that the aura of photography is really just a "presence", or a concept of something separate from it's temporal existence, which he gives an example of with the works of Sherrie Levine where she appropriates images from other photographers and recontextualizes them. The photos have "presence", despite the artist never hhaving come into contact with the subject of the images.
However, art photography of the time, while breaking convention with traditional artistic forms, finally liberating the medium from the vestiges of photographic styles derived from painting, was developing an aura of its own, as was mentioned in the Jeff Wall essay "Marks of Indifference". This newfound aura surrounding art photography made photographs subject to the kind of connoisseurship that paradoxically had been made unimportant by mechanical reproduction. However, Crimp argues that the aura of art photography is fundamentally different from other artforms in the sense that the aura of photography is really just a "presence", or a concept of something separate from it's temporal existence, which he gives an example of with the works of Sherrie Levine where she appropriates images from other photographers and recontextualizes them. The photos have "presence", despite the artist never hhaving come into contact with the subject of the images.
Postmodern Photography and Benjamin's Aura
In Crimp’s “The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism,” the author examines the presence and absence of aura in postmodern photography. In his essay, Crimp first introduces his multi-definitional concept of photographic presence. Counterintuitively, Crimp incorporates the sense of absence, as in a ghostly presence, within his definition of presence to interpret the role of postmodern photography in light of Benjamin’s aura. He argues instead of losing Benjamin’s aura as a result of mechanical reproduction, postmodern photography displaces this artistic aura by highlighting the absence of authenticity inherent in photography. By examining photographs of other photographic prints and still frame commercials, Crimp argues that ultimately argues that postmodern photography has “acquired an aura, only now it is a function not of presence but of absence.” (92) I found this idea to be interesting when juxtaposed to the concept of straight and documentary photography. In many ways, straight and documentary photography deal with presence and being. In straight and documentary photography, the photographer is there, at the site, to record at a precise moment and document a specific event. In many ways, this presence and being is also felt by the viewer. In an art gallery or in the viewer’s living room, these photographs meet the viewer half way, conferring on the viewer an emotional, spatial, and temporal presence. Crimp’s postmodern photography works against this. Instead of being transported to a new location and empathizing with the photographic subject, these photographs strive to distance the viewer from the subject. This distancing, however, is the product of mechanical reproduction. As a result, I do not find Crimp’s argument convincing, that simply by making the viewer aware of a photographic presence, photography is able to reacquire its sense of aura. As by making the viewer aware of the subject’s distance and ghostly presence, postmodern photographs serves to remove rather than affirm the spatial and temporal distance between the artist and the viewer.
The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism
I really enjoyed Crimp's article because I felt it related to earlier readings well. His writing illuminated Benjamin's ideas about photography for me. I thought his treatment of Benjamin's idea of the "aura" of a painting was particularly interesting because he complicates the idea of a painting possessing an aura. He does so by introducing the concept of artists taking a picture of a piece of art and reclaiming the art as their own. This new piece of art does not possess the same aura, if it possesses on at all, as the original. This reminded me of the conversation we had earlier in the semester about people taking pictures of their pictures as a sign of their wealth, because they had the means to take multiple pictures. Although I doubt modern artists take pictures of famous paintings to display their wealth, I am not wholly convinced of the reasoning behind this meta art form. I thought it was interesting to see the way that the same act can take on different meanings and how this act has transformed.
I also thought Crimp's discussion of presence was very interesting. His idea that you have to journey to see the real painting particularly caught my attention because it reminded me of another conversation from earlier in the semester where we discussed the importance of visiting a piece of art. However, I distinctly remember being very disappointed after seeing the Mona Lisa in person, it is so small and there are constantly tourists around the painting so I feel that making the journey might in fact detract from the painting. Putting in a lot of effort to see a piece of art in person creates a huge build-up of expectations that the actual piece of art likely fails to fulfill.
The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism
This essay brought up a lot of great points that refer back to Benjamin Walter’s beliefs of the aura of art. I felt that this essay clarified and distinguished some new concepts that are often confused with one another. Crimp brings up the new concept of prensence, which has a few different meanings. One is the reality of being there and the second was the presence of absence, and third the presence beyond being there. The aura in photographs is “ ins not to be found in the presence of the photographer in the photograph in the way that the aura of a painiting is determined b the presence of the painter’s unmistakable hand in his picture” instead it is the “presence of the subject, of what is photographed.” This statement for me clarifies the difference between the often confused concepts. While one is brought out because of the actual authenticity the painter brings to the art the other , the presence, is brought out through the actual subjects that are being represented thus concludes the reason the concept of presence of beyond being there. The presence of absence I felt was a slightly more confusing, and this concept I’m still very unsure about. Then there was the discussion of representation and how that Photograph if only the original is absent then there is representation, however what caught me really off guard his quote “and representation takes place because it is always already there in the world as representation”. All in all , I thought this essay brought very interesting ideas and clarified some of them and complicated it at the same time.
The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism
This essay was so much easier to understand than the Jeff Wall essay! The overall idea of postmodernism is still a bit fuzzy to me, but there were many parts of this essay that did make sense. I was fascinated by the different definitions of "presence" as well as the idea of the absense of the subject of the photo. It seems odd to me that someone would take a picture of someone else's photograph and call it their own work, or a work of postmodernism. It reminds me of the works by Duchamp (I think) that drew on the Mona Lisa. It was basically still the Mona Lisa with minor changes, and it becomes someone else's work. It seems wrong to me. But the idea that the subject of the photo is no longer there and that was the photographer's inspiration is a confusing/interesting point. Crimp talks about how when we see a duplication we want to see the original, and when we see the original we want to see the subject, but if we did it would be completely different, in different context, and therefore would fail to contain the authenticity we are searching for. Therefore when we see these representations they really are a new presentation of the original. That was my interpretation of that part of the essay, anyway, so it may not be accurate.
Crimp spoke a lot of Benjamin's essay, which was helpful also in understanding the work we read so long ago. Hearing Crimp's opinions and explanations was a nice supplement to our previous knowledge of the piece. Crimp further went into how Benjamin really likes copies, and how some photographs develop an aura of their own, something I whole-heartedly agree with. He says the aura develops from the subjects in the photographs--due to the long exposure time of the photo and the relationship between the photographer and the subject. Crimp goes on to say, however, that in the past few decades the depletion of the aura "...has been accelerated and intensified..." (87). This is due to the commercialization and mechanical reproduction of art. I didn't understand some of his "photography-as-art" comments which followed.
Crimp spoke a lot of Benjamin's essay, which was helpful also in understanding the work we read so long ago. Hearing Crimp's opinions and explanations was a nice supplement to our previous knowledge of the piece. Crimp further went into how Benjamin really likes copies, and how some photographs develop an aura of their own, something I whole-heartedly agree with. He says the aura develops from the subjects in the photographs--due to the long exposure time of the photo and the relationship between the photographer and the subject. Crimp goes on to say, however, that in the past few decades the depletion of the aura "...has been accelerated and intensified..." (87). This is due to the commercialization and mechanical reproduction of art. I didn't understand some of his "photography-as-art" comments which followed.
"The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism" - Sierra F.
Robert Crimp’s third definition of presence in “The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism” is quite compelling. He states, “I want to add the notion of presence as a kind of increment to being there, a ghostly aspect of presence that is its excess, its supplement” (84). It is true that when watching a live performance or viewing an image there is some extra indefinable quality that is tied to the experience. And I just really like the quote, “The presence before him was a presence” (84). It is one of those statements that I read, reread, and then thought about.
Also, Sherrie Levine’s strange style of producing art intrigued me. The fact that she took photographs of someone else’s posters and then described them with “only a string of quotations pilfered from others” is quite fascinating (90). I think the way in which she introduces her work is ingenious because she mirrors her photographing techniques in the description. The conversation between her and her friend made me realize what they were discussing was true. When looking at a picture (or any form of art) it makes the viewer want to see the moment that was captured. However, in reality if that moment were seen in real time, the “magic” of the image would not be there. It is in the representation in which we find art.
Also, Sherrie Levine’s strange style of producing art intrigued me. The fact that she took photographs of someone else’s posters and then described them with “only a string of quotations pilfered from others” is quite fascinating (90). I think the way in which she introduces her work is ingenious because she mirrors her photographing techniques in the description. The conversation between her and her friend made me realize what they were discussing was true. When looking at a picture (or any form of art) it makes the viewer want to see the moment that was captured. However, in reality if that moment were seen in real time, the “magic” of the image would not be there. It is in the representation in which we find art.
The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism
Douglas Crimp begins by talking about the experience of a photograph or piece of art as being more important than just seeing it in a picture or magazine. The 'copy of a copy' does not give any aura of the work, but rather, it makes you want to see the actual piece, which in turn makes you want to see what was being painted/photographed which would 'ruin the art'. I agree with his idea of experiencing a photograph or painting to fully capture it's detail, content, and beauty; many people take dangerous, expensive trips to the Pyramids to stand at the base in person. But I disagree with his take that the aura is completely lost with copies of art. Most of the art and architecture that I am familiar with has come from a representation of the building, painting, or photograph, and yet I still have an appreciation for those great works. I am no less impressed with the phenomenal amount of work and patience they have taken. I believe that the visualization of a copy of a copy and even a copy of a copy of a copy can still draw memorable experiences to be valued. While I am sure that I would never forget a visit to the Pantheon, I do not disregard its beauty and meaning because what I have seen is a 'stolen image' of it. Crimp then goes into the definition of presence and kind of makes up his own definition halfway between 'being there' and 'not being there' that I can understand, after the bit about experiencing a photograph. Mentally being there, plugged into a piece of art, exploring its corners and colors, examining it, understanding it, relating to it, trying to read it and just thinking is obviously a presence that exceeds 'just being there'. Laurie Anderson's presence as a performer was the example that clearly spelled his argument for me. His insight into the idea of how we experience art is great, in that it is an aspect of photography not normally discussed. Everyone wants to talk about what the artist/photographer was trying to do with their composition or their lighting and whatnot but how the viewer is going to feel and what they are doing and where they are when they see a great piece of art is a detail that was interesting to think about. As an architecture major, I will probably take this aspect into consideration in my future works. Needless to say, I enjoyed Crimp's take on the idea of a copy of a copy, a stolen image, and the aura a piece of art illuminates while experiencing it.
Question: What is Cindy Sherman's fascination with breasts?
Question: What is Cindy Sherman's fascination with breasts?
"The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism" - Lauren
We have examined Walter Benjamin and his establishment of the “aura” – such as how because photography is a mechanically produced reproduction or copy of an object, it (a photograph) does not possess an aura – but Douglas Crimp’s further conceptualization of these ideas in “The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism” not only puts them in a whole new light, but also helps to better understand Benjamin’s own point of view on the matter. What struck me as particularly interesting was Crimp’s examination of the relationship between the aura and the presence of the photographed subject.
What I found quite interesting, though also quite confusing, was Crimp’s discussion of photography and postmodernism, as the theory of postmodernism is a critical issue in another one of my classes. In that class, which is a city planning class about the theories of urban studies, post-modernity is described as a critiquing of modernity from within modern times and that it is a critical (and often ironic and sarcastic) stance towards modernity (although the definitions have varied dramatically so far and it is still difficult to put a finger on what exactly post-modernity is). In his essay, Crimp states that “the extraordinary presence of their work is effected through absence, through its unbridgeable distance from the original, from even the possibility of an original. Such presence is what I attribute to the kind of photographic activity I call postmodernist” (94). The connection I make between my other class and Crimp’s essay is that this removal of the presence that Benjamin seems to require in order for a piece of art to have an aura is the physical act of this ironic, sarcastic criticism. In other words, by playing with words, so to speak, and using absence to represent presence, postmodernist photographers are sarcastically critiquing Benjamin’s argument while at the same time conforming to his rules so that their work does possess an aura.
On the other hand, my other class also expresses a difference between modernism (images and visions that celebrate modernization) and modernity (the modern experiences we have). This could entirely alter the connection I just made between urban studies and postmodernist photography (such as, does this difference also apply to postmodernism and post-modernity?), and this is where I begin to really get confused….
What I found quite interesting, though also quite confusing, was Crimp’s discussion of photography and postmodernism, as the theory of postmodernism is a critical issue in another one of my classes. In that class, which is a city planning class about the theories of urban studies, post-modernity is described as a critiquing of modernity from within modern times and that it is a critical (and often ironic and sarcastic) stance towards modernity (although the definitions have varied dramatically so far and it is still difficult to put a finger on what exactly post-modernity is). In his essay, Crimp states that “the extraordinary presence of their work is effected through absence, through its unbridgeable distance from the original, from even the possibility of an original. Such presence is what I attribute to the kind of photographic activity I call postmodernist” (94). The connection I make between my other class and Crimp’s essay is that this removal of the presence that Benjamin seems to require in order for a piece of art to have an aura is the physical act of this ironic, sarcastic criticism. In other words, by playing with words, so to speak, and using absence to represent presence, postmodernist photographers are sarcastically critiquing Benjamin’s argument while at the same time conforming to his rules so that their work does possess an aura.
On the other hand, my other class also expresses a difference between modernism (images and visions that celebrate modernization) and modernity (the modern experiences we have). This could entirely alter the connection I just made between urban studies and postmodernist photography (such as, does this difference also apply to postmodernism and post-modernity?), and this is where I begin to really get confused….
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Photographic Activity
This essay seemed to me like it would be a supplement to the Jeff Wall reading. Crimp is interested in the idea of presence, explaining three kinds : being there, presence through absence, (kind of like that image we saw of man walking on grass) and lastly, that extra presence, beyond just being there. I was a little confused and it was hard to keep up with him, but it makes sense. In the typical sense that I first interpreted Benjamin's "aura", i would have defined the last presence as aura. That extra sense of ..well, sensual experience. That presence is what makes photographs postmodernist. However, i got a little lost when Crimp explained that Benjamin thought the opposite: the aura was lost in postmodernist photos, because it had to do with the original (the presence of the original)? I initially said this essay was a supplement to the Jeff Wall because the artists idea and presence was what was important. Here, it is not the photographer, but rather the subject's presence and the idea. In the Jeff Wall, artists were in the photograph. The artisit is the creator and actor in both essays, and they carry the presence.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Marks of Indifference
In "Marks of Indifference" Jeff Wall explores the evolution of photography in the 20th century and the significance of different forms to a concept of photography as art. In the beginning he asserts that early photography was rooted in the pictorial traditions of Western art. Concepts of perspective, figuration, and composition dominated artistic sensibilities in photography. However, beginning in the 1920s, a rethinking of the nature of photography took place, attempting to achieve a spontanaeity lacking in the early pictorialist works. This, according to Wall, began the modernist tradition of photo-journalistic technique which was to form the paradigm of photographic technique for the greater part of the next half century. With the emphasis on capturing specific moments in time, the importance of composition was greatly diminished and a "photographic eye" or penchant for framing specific actions as they occur took precedence.
It is under these conditions that the movement of 1960s and 70s avant-garde art photography came to be, which itself greatly owes to the radical avant-garde movements of the 1920s and 30s. However, while the earlier avant-garde movement rejected pictorial representations in search of a radically different aesthetic experience, the new Conceptual art movement took the traditions of photo-journalism and "inverted and parodied" them. On one end, Richard Long's landscapes take photo-journalistic reportage and change it substantially by creating an artificial, artist created motif to replace the traditional, natural subjects of the landscape genre. On the other end of the Conceptual spectrum, Bruce Nauman's studio performance art took the technique of reportage and applied it to documenting staged events that were entirely created by the artist. Both of them reintroduce the practice of composition by the artist, but they do not revert to the early pictorial traditions. Instead they adapt the modernist techniques of photo-journalism and adapt them to their own ends, and in doing so contribute something new and valuable to art photography.
It is under these conditions that the movement of 1960s and 70s avant-garde art photography came to be, which itself greatly owes to the radical avant-garde movements of the 1920s and 30s. However, while the earlier avant-garde movement rejected pictorial representations in search of a radically different aesthetic experience, the new Conceptual art movement took the traditions of photo-journalism and "inverted and parodied" them. On one end, Richard Long's landscapes take photo-journalistic reportage and change it substantially by creating an artificial, artist created motif to replace the traditional, natural subjects of the landscape genre. On the other end of the Conceptual spectrum, Bruce Nauman's studio performance art took the technique of reportage and applied it to documenting staged events that were entirely created by the artist. Both of them reintroduce the practice of composition by the artist, but they do not revert to the early pictorial traditions. Instead they adapt the modernist techniques of photo-journalism and adapt them to their own ends, and in doing so contribute something new and valuable to art photography.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Wall's "Mark of Indifference"
In Jeff Wall’s “Mark of Indifference,” the role of photography in transforming conceptual art and society was explored. While earlier essays on photography emphasized the medium’s authenticity and its ability to “bring the world into our living rooms,” Wall reveals another side of photography in works such Nauman’s studio photographs. Unlike photojournalism which documents the foreign and the unfamiliar, studio photography focused on portraying self. However, this inward focus and personal depiction is also informed by the photographer’s social and environmental milieu. As a result, these photographs became more than simply documentary records, but also pieces of artistic commentary. Wall also discussed another form of photography that also traced its roots to photojournalism. In Graham’s photo-essay, photographs are not simply autonomous pieces of art. Contrasting with the view of social photographers such as Hine, Graham’s photo-essays are not meant to be viewed autonomously and as evidence. Instead these photographs are meant to be seen as a collection and as illustrations to text. Although the interaction between text and photographs is also explored by Agee and Evans in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, these two components in Graham’s photo-essays seem to be much more contextualizing than iterative. Another aspect discussed was the amateurization of the photographic medium. This amateurization of photography takes the mechanical reproduction of art to the next level. Not only are photographs capable of being mass produced, as a result of modernization, even the camera, the machine that capture photographs, becomes the subject of mass production. This “mass production” in photography is embodied by Ruscha’s building photographs. Instead of being thought of as purely descriptive, the physical details of these ordinary buildings in the photographic collection of do not register within the viewer’s mind. Instead, they build an overall impression, a concept, within the viewers mind. Thus, Wall introduces the ability of modern photographs to be viewed as collection, reinforcing conceptual themes, rather than individual documents of significance and depiction.
The Anti-Photograpers
Once again, we are faced with the debate of the distinction between art and photography however we are now focusing our attention upon the people behind the masterpieces. The difference between the artist and photographer is very unclear. In the beginning of the article the writer states that “for every photographer who clamors to make it as an artist there is an artist running a grave risk of turning into a photographer” this almost describes a balance between the two practices. It’s as if there is this constant change between who wants to be an artist or photographer and there is dependence on each other. Later on the essay she states that even though photography become “ ’secondary’ information” when reproduced however “art that does not depend, as Siegelaub says, on its physical presence relies heavily on photography for its credibility”. There is this reliance on one another for each other’s credibility, without the other none would be as successful as they are today. Also I feel as though Foote brings up the point that was discussed earlier in the semester about how photography brings a sense of closeness to the viewer. The photograph meets the viewer half way by the display of the image but it’s up to the viewer to analyze and understand the art. Overall I enjoyed the discussion of the possible connection between art and photography, however towards the end I thought the transition of the relations of art and photography to the idea of different types of photography and how it relates to conceptual art. I felt it drove away from the original topic that was being discussed in the earlier paragraphs and this could’ve been turned into two different essays.
"Marks of Indifference"
Jeff Wall's essay on the "Marks of Indifference" was long and tedious, but had an abundance of body which left my head spinning with thought. He talked about photography as Conceptual Art, photojournalism, aestheticism, reportage, and amateurism. There were two parts that particularly interested me. First, the movement of photography being nonautonomous, and second, the reduction of art to minimal form by eliminating key characteristics of what the public deems art really is.
Wall talks about how Graham paired photographs with literature and created a piece of art that could stand autonomously with pictures and text together, but each component could not stand by itself. The two were dependent: pictorial literature. To me, that sounds natural, using a picture to further illustrate a point in an essay. But Graham made this pair an artform; he made the two lace perfectly together so that instead of simply holding use as a learning tool, the spead was aesthetically pleasing and beautiful. "Each photograph may be ... no more than an illustration to an essay, and therefore not an autonomous work of art." Making the photograph, which naturally usually stood on its own because of its high depiction quality, dependent on an a less descriptive art form sounds ludicrous. But then when you think about it, even a photograph which perfectly decpicts a scene is nothign without a caption to tell which scene it describes. The two were meant to be used together, but the fact of taking away the autonomy of a photograph was novel.
The second point that I found interesting was that the modern art was disposing of important elements of art. " Certain factors we used to think essential to the making and experiencing of art are shown not to be so by the fact that Modernist painting has been able to dispense with them and et continue to offer the experience of art in all its essentials." Modernist painting was able to eliminate such foundations suich as perspective, which sounds crazy, but became popular. The problem for phtoography was that it could not take away any key characteristics because it was a mechanical process. The "medium has virtually no dispensable characteristics" The way around this problem was through amateurization, which meant that "every man is an artist." Kodak put the camera in the hands of everyday citizens, making it easy to take pictures and document their lives. This transformed photography into a modernist medium.
Wall talks about how Graham paired photographs with literature and created a piece of art that could stand autonomously with pictures and text together, but each component could not stand by itself. The two were dependent: pictorial literature. To me, that sounds natural, using a picture to further illustrate a point in an essay. But Graham made this pair an artform; he made the two lace perfectly together so that instead of simply holding use as a learning tool, the spead was aesthetically pleasing and beautiful. "Each photograph may be ... no more than an illustration to an essay, and therefore not an autonomous work of art." Making the photograph, which naturally usually stood on its own because of its high depiction quality, dependent on an a less descriptive art form sounds ludicrous. But then when you think about it, even a photograph which perfectly decpicts a scene is nothign without a caption to tell which scene it describes. The two were meant to be used together, but the fact of taking away the autonomy of a photograph was novel.
The second point that I found interesting was that the modern art was disposing of important elements of art. " Certain factors we used to think essential to the making and experiencing of art are shown not to be so by the fact that Modernist painting has been able to dispense with them and et continue to offer the experience of art in all its essentials." Modernist painting was able to eliminate such foundations suich as perspective, which sounds crazy, but became popular. The problem for phtoography was that it could not take away any key characteristics because it was a mechanical process. The "medium has virtually no dispensable characteristics" The way around this problem was through amateurization, which meant that "every man is an artist." Kodak put the camera in the hands of everyday citizens, making it easy to take pictures and document their lives. This transformed photography into a modernist medium.
Marks of Indifference
Jeff Wall's piece was extremely hard for me to understand, mainly because there were a lot of ideas/words that meant nothing to me. I'm going to try to pick a part that I could connect with and make a response for because the over-all piece was very hard for me. Photojournalism, on page 70, is defined as a collaboration between a writer and a photographer. Wall states that (directly after his definition of photojournalism), "Conceptual art's intellectualism was engendered by young, aspiring artists for whom critical writing was an important practice for self-definition." In my mind, I imagine artists who make a piece and then, using self-reflection and self-criticism, write a short or long narrative explaining, elaborating, criticizing, etc. that piece of art. It is important for them to step back and think about what they have done and by writing it out they may discover something new about that work, or maybe just be satisfied with what they have created. For me, putting stuff into words is not always easy (as seen by this response), and most of the time I realize I don't even know how I really feel about something because I can't get it out of my head, onto paper. It is one thing to believe something internally, it is another to externalize it. It really is a difficult thing, and perhaps for artists it really helps them learn more fully what they have created and why. It's like what was in their head is now externalized by the physical work of art, and also by this piece of writing--but the piece of art may still just be a physical interpretation of that confusing mess inside their head, so the writing further clarifies what that means. I hope some of that made sense
"Marks of Indifference"
I found Jeff Wall's essay particularly intriguing primarily because I invested so much time rereading it in order to understood his argument. His writing is convoluted to the point that it makes reading his essay frustrating and his style is overly verbose, obscuring his message. I am still unsure of what he was arguing in his essay despite repeated efforts at clarification. And yet, his writing presents such a comprehensive look at relations among art, photography, aesthetics and different movements that I could not completely disregard this essay.
Wall writes so compellingly that it seems impossible to argue with his assertions. I find it particularly difficult to analyze because he makes me, as a reader, feel uninformed about photography therefore lacking the knowledge to critique his writing.
Despite being a difficult a reading, it was full of interesting information about photography and how it has transformed over the years. I was particularly interested in his discussion of abstract art photography as a rejection of depiction. While it makes sense that abstract art does not strive to depict anything, it seems counter-intuitive to have abstract art photography because the essence of photography is to capture something real. I thought this was especially interesting in light of our discussions about straight photography and documentary photography as depictions of "real life." The rejection of this type of photography seemed to convince Wall that photography was finally an art form.
“Marks of Indifference” Jeff Wall
“Marks of Indifference” was a sophisticated essay to read about conceptual art in the form of photography. This essay capsulated the true exploration of photography in various art forms which rightfully began around 1920. At this time, taking photos was about mainly about reporting or “reportage”. These artists began to look away from art and look more towards cinema to discover spontaneity.
Jeff Wall spent a great deal speaking on the topic of art-photography’s achieved or perceived “aestheticism”. This term I interpret to mean a photographs true artistic aura and its overall visual aspect that it provides for an observer. I found myself having to read sections of his essay a few times because of Wall’s refined writing style and way of describing the different technical and visual aspects of art-photography. Throughout this article he does a great job of building up the different aspects of photo-art: abstract art, conceptual, photojournalism, and other modern aspects of photography. He provides so much compelling information on these topics that it guides the reader into talking Wall’s word for truth which makes it hard to make an argument against the topics he covers. Upon first read, it actually seems as if Wall has left nothing out of this complicated essay.
I especially enjoyed his section on abstract art and how it is a revolutionary form which continues its evolution with the rejection of depiction of history. This not so simple statement, I’m sure, contains a deeper meaning judging from the complex form of this essay. Either way I found this section especially intriguing mainly because this is a new topic that we have yet to cover in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)